Jump to content

elminster

Members
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by elminster

  1. You still don't understad EVERY game has mana system even BG games, NWN and all other D&D games. Just in there are other explonation for mana system caled "slots" system/ teorie for putting it. The "Slot"-system you don't have actual mana shown (like HP for example) but you have slots, numer of posible slots are progressing in 1 lvl you have less then on 30 lv, also Inteligence stat afects it and you have more "Slots" on 32 int then on 12 int. The slot's system is used only for excusse Rest spawning for mages and nothing more. This "Slots" system theats mages like a sponge used to clean up when the sponge shove into the water it get's full of water, But when you press the sponge gets empty again and you have to put it back into the water. The "slot" sysem is reasonable ONLY when we assume that Mages don't have own power and they must by Charged like battery, so besiacly they stole energy from other resorses "their soul when sleeping " or "from surrauding". I personaly don't like this idea becose i whant to be an independent powerfull unit an not same kinda Energy/mana stealer. Of coure i like the idea that mages can take "some" energy from the environment but the CORE should be their own power. In that case it's reasonable that on 40 lvl mage we say "wow HE is powerfull mage !!" but in "Slots" system the only reasonable coment to 40 lvl mage is "Wow he suck the energy dry so hard im emprest he sucks better then anywon i ever meet WOOOOW ! " (don't get offendet it's only a cheap joke if some is then im sorry ) The point "taking energy from the environment" sounds interesting but just for priests. Priests could pray in a temple to memorize some spells. I agree that the core of mages should be their own power. Thats true mental / magic strength.
  2. Only IF : 1. There are no magical shids agins this type of spells 2. You have no resistence to them 3. Your foes are stupid 4. You fight week enemys 5. There are no counter spells 6. Enemy Mages are not useing the system:) 7. There are no "Magic" resistance in game 8. There are no strong enemy's like vampires or dragons 9. You are not beginer. 10. There are no foe's or classes that have abylitis for fighing a mages or counter them. 11. None of other class is overpowerd So you right ELMINSTER has spoken Ok, you're rigth with 9 - I'm not a beginner. I played BG 2 with the tactics mod on insane to make it a bit more challenging 1, 3 and 6 are pointing in the same directions - even if there are magical shields they are most likely not used, sometimes even by the player. In BG 2 the lvl. 1 shield spell protected against magic missile - but did you (know and) use it? 2 and 7 resistance is a good point but only affects some monsters - e.g. each spell strength develops against a certain type of enemies (who are not resistant). Magic resistance is good - but there is lower resistance etc.. 4-8 I dont know what u mean by weak, dragons were ok but could be better on insane 5 counter spells are seldom used but e.g. always exist (smth. like spell turning) 10 figther magekiller in BG 2 was ridiculous - maybe monks 11 yes you're rigth - it's unfair talking just about mages in this way. To be honest, I hope that the mage implemented in PE is a bit like in BG 2 - because it was great Ok, I'm just talking about BG 2 (what a great game ). I deinstalled Icewind Dale 1 & 2 after playing about 3 hours. I didnt like other rpgs cause of the environment (f.e. planescape torment) but tried some.
  3. Then why the hell are they LEARNING magic for many YEARS ? For a fun ? Mages are suposed to live 200 to 400 years (or even more) An for all this years he can't remember Fire ball spell ? He can't cast a simple Fireball when he wants but he can burn dawn whole villige with fire storm spell ? I dont understand that logic. If powerful mage must rest must rest after 3 fire arrows becouse his tired then haw he manage to cast firestorm spell 4 times ? i think that it takes 10000 fire arrows to do the same effect as Firestorm spell .... wheres logic in that ? Fighter can swing sword when he want but if he whant to do pawerfull blow he cant do this every time becouse he must rest he will simply get tired. I undersdand that 1 or even 8 lvl mage don't remember everything or can't swing spell all the time becouse he also get tired (on mystical level) and he don't have big power yet. But 40 lvl mage like Elminster shoud pull fireball in suth dificulty as farting and i don't know anywon who must rest before he farts again. *farting* OK, now to the topic: I think that the mage system at all needs some new rules. First of all, I love mages. When I played Baldurs Gate 2 the most interesting character was the mage. His powers, even limited to a cast a certain number of spells (5 as normal mage, 6 as specialist) were unbelievable high. That was first because enemy mages were quiet dumb and second cause you knew when to use which spell (melfs acid arrow (lvl. 2) vs. mages, fireball / ligthning (lvl. 3) vs. group of enemies). If you unlimit the use of level 2 and 3 spells, the mage is overpowered. I'm a fan of BG and I think introducing cooldowns wouldnt solve the problem as it destroys the meaning of rounds. So, how to solve this problem. I think the best way to restrict overpowering is limiting the spells a mage can use unlimited. That could be, speaking again of BG 2, some spells like Blindness, Alp (single), one reflected image (all lvl.1), Luck, Power word:sleep (all lvl.2), etc... The way you limit the spells could also mean that you implement choosing the unlimited spells. Why doing so? First, it makes your wizard much more individual. The only other way to individualize you mage in BG 2 was choosing a school specialisation (gives u one more spell but always kicks some good spells) or dualclass your mage (most favorit: kensai, another way to overpower a mage). Secondly, it's a strategic choise in respect to some kind of enemies. F.e. blindness is good against fighters, alp is good to figth vs. more enemies at once. What do I suggest as other kind of mage specialisation? Implement some spells that only some mages can use. That can be in respect from their school (chosen at the beginning), their race or in respect to some decisions later on (which group I join - magic groups could be implemented like the (nonmagic) shadowthieves or vampires in BG 2). Give us more spell levels (13-17 sounds good). Some low levels (1-5) have only spells u can later use unlimited. Some mid level (6-10) are used like in BG 2, u can memorize 5/6 spells. And some high levels (11-13/17), u can only use SOME spells, depending on the same things as mentioned above. So, Elminster has spoken. Please comment, I hope u liked my ideas.
  4. Exactly the point. Maybe trashmobs like gnolls in BG 1 were some kind of nice because you played your first Infinity game and had to learn how it works. But later on, a lot of enemies are just kiddingly weak - I hope they do it more like in BG 2 where you had easy encounters in the starting dungeon and better ones later. By the way, it doesnt have to be always an adventuring party, just think of beholders, illithids or undead.
  5. I like the inventory system from BG too. The bag of holding was quiet nice.
  6. I'm not sure XP is supposed to represent general heroism. Should the player lose XP for himself killing townsfolk? It should be for overcoming challenges. Monsters threatening townsfolk can be a challenge and if they're killing people, that should be an XP granting quest of its own, not just taking a necklace. XP represents a variety of things. Quest xp clearly shows that. So, should you get xp for things only when you get asked by someone to do something? I think not. Killing someone/something that wants to kill you is an achievement on its own that deserves bonus xp. When he kills townsfolk himself he loses reputation which usually ends up in indirect xp loss. I think its not a problem to get much experience for killing an evil monster. But why not giving much exp for unconventional, in my opinion even my interesting ways as sneaking and discussing? Its still not possible for all figths, so where is the problem?
  7. I think books in Baldurs Gate were great for giving the game a special background and atmosphere. What would Candlekeep be without its books? But I disagree on the informational part of books. I like the way of reading a book in the game when I find its title interesting (so I would never read all books). What I could imagine as a sidequest would be finding a book with a special name and read through it to gain some information for the quest.
  8. If there are enough backers for the stronghold I hope it gets a bit more individual than the stronghold / places you could possess in BG 2. Different options for furniture / decorated rooms would be nice. Different kind of strongholds as castles / towers etc. would be even great. But concerning this I'm probably dreaming (of my own mage tower )
  9. When I read Orlan I immediately think of orphans... so I agree its a foolish name. But for the other race I'd like a magical one more. Why not creating some undead / vampires in contrast to the godlike? Or a race which gives people magic abilities like turning invisible / teleporting / magic attacks. This could allow you f.e. to create some figthers with magical abilities which I'd like to see very much.
  10. Isn't it a custom to give experience in PnP to players who use their character's skills? And I don't agree its harder to kill than it is to sneak. Every situation is different. It might even be harder to talk your way through the situation (a more fitting test to 'Bard' characters than butchering) than either sneaking or killing. I think in the same way. First of all, sneaking is often not the alternative, but speaking. F.e. use your charismatic skills to persuade someone. The scene with the ogres is therefore not the most common one. Second, they are enough figths in a RPG. Why not mixing in a few other ways, who are creative, sometimes humorous and nonviolant?
  11. I like ouroboros more than a name of a region / city again like "Aedyr Empire". Or maybe a millionaire should name it for investing lets say 1 million. Would be fair and good for the game :=)
  12. ceap trick in BG 2 you could load 3 offensive spells on a spell triger and use it on an enemy, or put in 3 defensive spells and use them on yourself. same thing was for chain contigency. however most enemy wizards could have 2 defensive and one offensive spell or 2 offensive and 1 defensive spell in a triger or contigency, and auto cast the defensive on them and the offensive on you. ie Draconis: contigency activated Draconis: shielded Draconis: protection from magic weapons Draconis: Ali Da'Zib's Horrid willing-John Draconis: spell triger Draconis: casts stoneskin-Draconis Draconis: casts Death spell-John Draconis: casts Symbol Fear-John not to mention the fact that you could have only 1 active contigency, but ALL enemy wizards had at least 3 or the fact the certain spells, offered more to enemies that what they did for the party... complete imunity offers invulnerability to all weapons except +5 and up. a lich used it, i used Ixil's Spear +6 on him and: Weapon Ineffective I loved the figths in Baldurs Gate 2 although even with 3 contigencys many wizards used the same spells.. so combat was easier than it could be. I generally like more spells than having always the same 5-10 used by enemy mages. That was quiet boring after some time. And yes, this of cause requieres more reloads
  13. Im against a saving limitation for several areas in the whole game. Maybe at certain, storyrelevant points. Than you could make these interesting points more challenging and increase the motivation to play throung that points. But reloading every time the last savepoint which is one hour ago when you accidently run unprepared in a difficult battle? No, that would lower the fun of the game and be quiet frustrating.
  14. I fear that a monk like in Baldurs Gate 2 would not fit into partyplay quiet well. He could do everything alone. So when implementing why not adding something like a buffing from a monk for single characters for which he has to concentrate so he cant do other things. I think that was done with some priest spells in past so it would fit in the religious background quiete well.
  15. I really like the idea of having classes with limited mage/priest powers. Nevertheless my personal opinion is that a bard isn't very good at anything, I dont like it. If you implement it please give him some kind of powers which not only rely on buffing the group (same for paladin).
  16. I'd like it but I think other aspects like differences between races are more important. If sheating is easy to integretate and dont need much time / ressources they should do it.
  17. I like the idea of nonbeatable encounters very much. Why should the player who takes part in a huge world, be able to beat everybody, even real living legends of that world ?! Think of the fantastic encounters in Baldurs Gate 2: Drizzt with party, Saemon Haevarian... it would be boring if u could ram everything into the ground... enemies like dragons / kangaxx in bg 2 I liked as well, but they were a bit to easy to call them nonbeatable I think. Why not having a fight against a exceptionally strong enemy mage who cheats the game in some way?
  18. ^This x 9999 I hope we aren't putting too high an expectation on Obsidian. Two Athkala sized cities... I haven't since these big sized included in an cRPG for a very long, long time.... (maybe never...) with all the associated quests, exploration and NPCs. I absolutely LOVE the idea of 2 big citys... maybe one of them is not human so we get a HUGE image of nonhumanculture (f.e. from dwarves from which I missed a city in Baldurs Gate 1 & 2; it could show as the great ability of buildung halls etc. of dwarves). The only problem is that I fear we wont hit that goal - about 750k left with 4 days left - thats about 200k / day. I already donated 35$ today
×
×
  • Create New...